On Thursday, 6 April 2017 at 19:27:50 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
We commit to be more formal about the process, but overall it
is correct that we have more say in what gets in the language.
Allow me to add a couple of things.
First, this is the way things are commonly done in language
design - a small committee defines a formal process and
ultimately decides on features. In fact it is unusual that we
put up unfinished ideas up for discussion, which we hope has
the raises the level of responsibility in the community. I
understand how what we did has been misunderstood as us just
considering ourselves exempt from the due process. We have a
very strong interest to follow a formal process and have the
trail serve as a template to follow. (That intent is visible in
https://github.com/dlang/DIPs/blob/master/DIPs/DIP1005.md as
well, with the unexpected twist of an interesting idea that
obsoleted it. The idea has come from Daniel Nielsen in this
forum and has been adapted with credit in
https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/1756.)
Second, we are very much open to increasing the size of our
committee. This is already happening - it is obvious that known
strong contributors with a good track record and who make
consistently valuable have a huge impact on the language and
library definition. Fortunately we have quite a few of those.
In contrast, our attention is more difficult to be commanded by
commentators who have little history of pull requests,
good-quality DIPs, articles etc. and attempt to strong-arm us
into pursuing underspecified ideas.
Third, all of this is a process not an immutable status. We are
learning leadership on the job, and although I think we have
made large strides since only e.g. one year ago, there is much
more to improve. Expect more changes in the future and please
bear with us and grant us your understanding as we are getting
the hang of it.
Thank you for the detailed reply. It helps the understanding by
the community.
